ublic schools in Duval County, Florida won't been needing ballots for elections that supposedly allow students to vote on who will deliver prayer and other "messages" at high school graduation ceremonies. In a 2-1 decision, a panel of judges from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the practice "coerces objecting students to participate in prayer," according to a majority opinion authored by Chief Judge Joseph W. Hatchett. The court ruled that U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges erred in May, 1998 when he denied a motion filed by attorney for three students and two parents to grant a preliminary injunction against the practice.

   The school policy provided that students would vote in elections to determine a particular "message" which would be delivered at the official graduation ceremony. A supporter of the policy told the Jacksonville Times-Union newspaper that she will seek to have the school board appeal the case to the Supreme Court if necessary, and will have the matter placed on the agenda for an upcoming meeting. School Board Chairman Linda Sparks declared that the policy "is for students to determine the format of their graduation ceremony," adding: "If they choose by majority or consensus to have someone ask for God to bless their future on graduation day, that is up to them."

   But plaintiffs charged that majority-rule "messages" were simply a ploy to circumvent the First Amendment, and that such prayers or inspirational homilies "are insensitive to the increasing religious diversity of the student body." A director for the Florida ACLU, which represented the plaintiffs, added, "Religion is to be left to the home, church and synagogue or baccalaureate service."

   In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in LEE v. WEISMAN that graduation invocations were unconstitutional. At issue was whether the justices would use the standards of MARSH v. CHAMBERS (1983) or LEMON v. KURTZMAN (1971). MARSH was a challenge to the opening of Nebraska state legislative sessions with a prayer by a state-funded chaplain. Justices upheld the practice saying that the prayer was part of a "tradition", and cited the practice as a form of "civil religion." In LEMON, though, justices used a three-pronged test which more strictly interpreted the establishment clause of the First Amendment. LEMON requires that any statute must have a secular purpose; that its primary purpose must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and that it must not foster excessive entanglement between church and state.

   LEE v. WEISMAN found that graduation ceremony prayers organized and arranged by school authorities resulted in an official sanction of religion, and thus did not pass constitutional scrutiny. School prayer advocates than attempted to promote "student led" or "student initiated" prayer, which supposedly resolved any First Amendment conflicts and links between government and the action of the prayer. In 1993, following the decision in LEE v. WEISMAN, many school districts throughout the nation -- including Duval County -- suddenly became free speech advocates (at least in the matter of public religiosity) and approved a policy which allowed students to vote on whether to have a representative give a "message" during the graduation ceremony.

   Plaintiffs argued that the policy was a blatant attempt to circumvent the intend of LEE v. WEISMAN, and find a back door rationale for having prayer at an official school function.

   The school board may appeal to the U.S. Supreme court, or demand an "en banc" hearing before all twelve judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

[text only]